It would require the world to get together on a war footing to tackle threats to sustainability. Right now. Vanishingly unlikely.
I suspect this is a pattern repeated throughout the universe. Once evolution kicks up a species with the behavioural flexibility to escape ecological limits on its reproductive success, it's likely just a biological inevitability that it will pullulate uncontrollably. It will thus wipe out everything in its path until its own nest is fouled and it dies back.
If the species in question happens to be one that, like ours, has attained that flexibility via higher-order cognition, it will invent justifying rationalisations for its destructive activities (destiny, economic growth etc). But in the end it's just biology.
Not trying to be critical, but you remind me of a curious question I had.
Is there anything that can really end all life on Earth short of the earth being ejected from the solar system or things of equivalent magnitude?
Sure, we might nuke humans and most animals into extinction, but life would survive. Do we know if new complex animals would evolve again "quickly" (meaning hundreds of millions of years)?
No. Even liquefying the solid part of the planet with another similar body wont kill everything. Life exists in the upper atmosphere and beyond. There is life on our space junk, and things survive in escaped impact debris.
"My first child is going to be born in February; I'm 48. And I think I left it such a long time because I kind of lost faith in a lot of the work we see as photojournalists. You lose faith in humanity to some extent."
I share his sentiment. Such luck we have with this amazing planet, and all we do is destroy it. Humanity is disgusting.
Humanity is amazing. Billions of years of nothing but mindless senseless suffering and death in the natural world, and finally we emerge, a creature that can think beyond the next meal, next kill, next rape. Even if we do it imperfectly, the fact we can try at all is possibly the most special thing that has ever happened in the entire universe. Humanity is amazing.
It's pretty crazy that life started on Earth about ~4 billion years ago, almost as soon as there was liquid water, but the Cambrian Explosion didn't occur until about ~0.5 billion years ago. Really makes you wonder what the heck was going on for three and a half billion years. Also, maybe it's an indication that life is easy to come by and exists in every little nook and cranny in the Universe, but complex multi-cellular life is a larger hurdle.
Yup, this is a very likely possibility, that even if life emerges the other conditioms may not be present to make it evolve to the next stage. Even the fact that humans have made it ahead of other species is not given at all. Other apes were far less lucky.
Don't think too much about ourselves. Even a tiny ant is far more superior than anything technology has achieved. To achieve this "crap" technology, we have nearly destroyed the planet.
> Billions of years of nothing but mindless senseless suffering and death in the natural world
False ("nothing but" signals either a silly rhetorical flourish, or profound ignorance of the "natural world", which contains joys and sorrows in vast and complex patterns resisting such narrow simplification).
> the fact we can try at all is possibly the most special thing that has ever happened in the entire universe
Daft if you ignore "possibly" - we know almost nothing even of other regions of our own galaxy, let alone 'the entire universe'. Trivially true if you admit "possibly".
All this aside, however amazing humanity undoubtedly is, it is failing, perhaps inevitably, at the signal task of our age, which is to maintain civilisation without destroying our home. There is no sign thus far that this can or will improve.
Farm them for horns (removing the horn is painless [0], once the horn is removed release into the wild), tax the production of horns, use the tax money to find conservation and security.
The increased supply will decrease prices, making the hunting of rhino less profitable.
The argument against this is that increased supply will increase demand. Also, its not hard to see corruption eating away the profits, and therefore investment into conservation.
Baby rhinos don't have horns (they grow a bit like hair), and these are not domestic animals. It's like saying "why not tag all the mountain lions in the US, then you know where they all are".
If you (as a poacher) spend a day tracking down a rhino only to find out it has already been de-horned then you shoot it so that you reduce the chances of the next hunt ending up with another de-horned rhino and a higher chance of it ending with a horned rhino.
You guys should consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights these poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed.
There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor these cuties [5][6]. It's a good gift.
Thanks for pointing this out. We also support the IAPF. The images they regularly post on their Facebook account are really shocking and sad. The current rate at which these large animals are killed is frightening. We supported more political organizations for a while (like WWF), but it seemed to me that investing directly in armed protection is currently more effective. I wish that the poaching situation would be recognized as a problem that needs military intervention by nations.
An environmental and animal welfare activist, Mander is outspoken about the priorities of mankind in an increasingly challenged society. He frequently advocates the use of military equipment and tactics for the purpose of protecting animals, including the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
Mander used his life savings and liquidated his investments and assets to fund the start-up and running costs of the International Anti-Poaching Foundation – an organisation dedicated to the protection and preservation of wildlife in some of the world's most volatile regions.
"Faith in humanity". Always makes me wonder why some people hold this kind of unproven belief that the human race as a whole is a good and loving one and that evil is only the exception. There is no such thing. Humans can and will behave like monsters when the incentives are there, whether it is for their own survival, or their own benefit.
What's the point of a comment like this? It seems pointlessly negative and about as far from insightful as statements like "all charity is ultimately self-interest, by some definitions".
What do you, or anyone reading your comment, get out of it?
I'm a tiny bit pissed off, but perhaps that's just morning grumpiness. But I'm also honestly curious.
I agree with you that comments like that do not add to anyone’s knowledge. These are kinda too extreme to get right at first part of life and obvious at the second. If someone positively explained to me what life really is when I was young, I wouldn’t spend around a decade on bs ideas that are simply not there.
The vast majority of people hold mostly beliefs that their culture has inducted them into. I expect if you interrogate yours closely, you'll find some in your own stock. Some form of human exceptionalism is a bedrock of most cultural belief systems (including the scientistic one). It's so universal, that I wonder about your wondering. Where have you been?
As sad as the photo of the rhino makes me, I find the photo below of the elephants in the palm plantation even sadder. So much of Southeast Asia's forests have been destroyed to create palm oil plantations. It's not only devastating for animals like the pictured elephants, but it's also a big contributor to climate change.
Anyone who cares about the environment or ethical treatment of animals should be reading labels and avoiding all products containing palm oil.
> Brent Stirton says the things he's seen have dented his faith in humanity
It's sad that we're not advance enough to become a higher being that can co-live with other beings without ... contention.
When I was in elementary school, my the text book and so my teacher often use the phase 'Human conquered the nature' (Or 'conquers', my memory is fuzzy about that).
Then as I grow up, I start to wounder, is that actually true? We're the part of the nature. How can we label ourself as a conqueror if we're part of it?
But that phase seems imprinted in lot's of peoples mind deeply: We're the conqueror, and so the nature is just a pool of resource for us to use.
Since we're the conqueror, we can decide what to do, what not.
That rhino's horn is nothing but a resource to us. We need it's horn, so we collect it. Killing the rhino is just the process of collecting. So we have no feeling killing it, neither care about that rhino will die in the process.
And sometime, we not just do that to rhinos, because as conqueror, we decide which or who will be conquered.
36 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 74.4 ms ] threadI suspect this is a pattern repeated throughout the universe. Once evolution kicks up a species with the behavioural flexibility to escape ecological limits on its reproductive success, it's likely just a biological inevitability that it will pullulate uncontrollably. It will thus wipe out everything in its path until its own nest is fouled and it dies back.
If the species in question happens to be one that, like ours, has attained that flexibility via higher-order cognition, it will invent justifying rationalisations for its destructive activities (destiny, economic growth etc). But in the end it's just biology.
Is there anything that can really end all life on Earth short of the earth being ejected from the solar system or things of equivalent magnitude?
Sure, we might nuke humans and most animals into extinction, but life would survive. Do we know if new complex animals would evolve again "quickly" (meaning hundreds of millions of years)?
I share his sentiment. Such luck we have with this amazing planet, and all we do is destroy it. Humanity is disgusting.
Either way, thanks for the positive message.
[1] http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary...
True.
> Billions of years of nothing but mindless senseless suffering and death in the natural world
False ("nothing but" signals either a silly rhetorical flourish, or profound ignorance of the "natural world", which contains joys and sorrows in vast and complex patterns resisting such narrow simplification).
> the fact we can try at all is possibly the most special thing that has ever happened in the entire universe
Daft if you ignore "possibly" - we know almost nothing even of other regions of our own galaxy, let alone 'the entire universe'. Trivially true if you admit "possibly".
All this aside, however amazing humanity undoubtedly is, it is failing, perhaps inevitably, at the signal task of our age, which is to maintain civilisation without destroying our home. There is no sign thus far that this can or will improve.
Farm them for horns (removing the horn is painless [0], once the horn is removed release into the wild), tax the production of horns, use the tax money to find conservation and security.
The increased supply will decrease prices, making the hunting of rhino less profitable.
The argument against this is that increased supply will increase demand. Also, its not hard to see corruption eating away the profits, and therefore investment into conservation.
[0] http://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/does-it-hurt-a-rhino-w...
If you (as a poacher) spend a day tracking down a rhino only to find out it has already been de-horned then you shoot it so that you reduce the chances of the next hunt ending up with another de-horned rhino and a higher chance of it ending with a horned rhino.
There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of them are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor these cuties [5][6]. It's a good gift.
You should also check out http://reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs for a daily dose of elephant gifs.
[0] http://www.iapf.org/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fo...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander
[3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust
[5] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/asp/orphan_profile.asp...
[6] https://www.instagram.com/p/BZz6S-fFBQL/?taken-by=dswt
A comment search for "You guys should consider donating" yields 9 highly similar results with your name attached.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=You%20guys%20should%20consider...
Mander used his life savings and liquidated his investments and assets to fund the start-up and running costs of the International Anti-Poaching Foundation – an organisation dedicated to the protection and preservation of wildlife in some of the world's most volatile regions.
I'm sold. He sounds like an awesome dude.
I'll set up a donation as soon as I get home.
What do you, or anyone reading your comment, get out of it?
I'm a tiny bit pissed off, but perhaps that's just morning grumpiness. But I'm also honestly curious.
Anyone who cares about the environment or ethical treatment of animals should be reading labels and avoiding all products containing palm oil.
It's sad that we're not advance enough to become a higher being that can co-live with other beings without ... contention.
When I was in elementary school, my the text book and so my teacher often use the phase 'Human conquered the nature' (Or 'conquers', my memory is fuzzy about that).
Then as I grow up, I start to wounder, is that actually true? We're the part of the nature. How can we label ourself as a conqueror if we're part of it?
But that phase seems imprinted in lot's of peoples mind deeply: We're the conqueror, and so the nature is just a pool of resource for us to use.
Since we're the conqueror, we can decide what to do, what not.
That rhino's horn is nothing but a resource to us. We need it's horn, so we collect it. Killing the rhino is just the process of collecting. So we have no feeling killing it, neither care about that rhino will die in the process.
And sometime, we not just do that to rhinos, because as conqueror, we decide which or who will be conquered.